Nov 21, 2019 2 min read

I read with great interest the Nov. 13 article, “Coroner’s office: It can be a challenge finding next-of-kin,” and the new technology available to help the coroner.

Born and raised in Washington, I live 150 miles away in northeast Ohio. On May 21, I was unable to reach my sister, Linda (Francis) McKavish, by phone. Relatives in Washington were notified and in the next 24 hours, her home was searched, police were notified, a missing person report was filed, and calls were made to Washington Hospital and the coroner’s office, which was closed. The Observer-Reporter ran a notice May 23, “Coroner’s office seeks information.” That’s when a classmate of my sister phoned me with the news. My sister was dead. I called the coroner’s office and was told that she was found dead next to her car in a parking lot 2.5 miles from her home in the early morning of May 20. Her driver’s license was with her. She had been in the morgue for four days. I could not understand why it was so difficult to locate next-of-kin.

Coroner Tim Warco, who has known my family across three generations, was sorry that he did not recognize my sister. No one should expect the coroner to recognize the deceased; rather, he should be expected to engage in an exhaustive investigation. I informed him that a Google search of the name on the driver’s license brought up multiple relatives within 30 seconds.

I’m not clear which protocol was used to identify my sister, but it appears that the only step taken was to announce her death in the newspaper. That approach is inexcusable and demonstrates either a lack of ability or motivation from the coroner. Sophisticated technology is only as good as the user. Computer programs and databases are helpful, but there’s no substitute for a determined effort and communication with existing institutions.

Dr. William W. Francis

Westlake, Ohio